VIOLENCE

Sokoloff,
AGAINSTDupont
WOMEN
/ INTERSECTIONS
/ January 2005
OF RACE,
10.1177/1077801204271476
CLASS, AND GENDER

Domestic Violence at the Intersections

of Race, Class, and Gender
Challenges and Contributions to Understanding Violence
Against Marginalized Women in Diverse Communities

NATALIE J. SOKOLOFF
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
IDA DUPONT
Pace University

This article provides a comprehensive review of the emerging domestic violence literature
using a race, class, gender, sexual orientation intersectional analysis and structural
framework fostered by women of color and their allies to understand the experiences and
contexts of domestic violence for marginalized women in U.S. society. The first half of the
article lays out a series of challenges that an intersectional analysis grounded in a struc-
tural framework provides for understanding the role of culture in domestic violence. The
second half of the article points to major contributions of such an approach to feminist
methods and practices in working with battered women on the margins of society.

Keywords: culture and social structure; intersectionalities and domestic violence;

multicultural domestic violence; race, class, gender, and domestic
violence

An emerging body of scholarly work is giving voice to battered

women from a wide range of formerly excluded and ignored
communities. This literature embodies a variety of theoretical
perspectives that emphasize the individual lived experiences of
diverse battered women (Garfield, 2001; Waits, 1998) as well as
the social structural underpinnings of domestic violence in

AUTHORS’ NOTE: The authors would like to thank Gail Garfield, Fred Pincus,
Christina Pratt, Judith Seid, and the two anonymous reviewers from Violence Against
Women for their helpful comments.
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN, Vol. 11 No. 1, January 2005 38-64
DOI: 10.1177/1077801204271476
© 2005 Sage Publications
38
 Sokoloff, Dupont / INTERSECTIONS OF RACE, CLASS, AND GENDER 39

culturally diverse communities (Sokoloff, 2005; Sokoloff &

Dupont, 2005). Scholars adopting these approaches have chal-
lenged the primacy of gender as an explanatory model of domes-
tic violence and have emphasized the need to examine how other
forms of inequality and oppression, such as racism, ethnocen-
trism, class privilege, and heterosexism, intersect with gender
oppression. This approach calls for public policies that address
these structural root causes of domestic violence. Because of the
many contributions of this growing body of work, the domestic
violence literature has become increasingly relevant to more and
more diverse segments of our society (Nesmith, 2001).
In this domestic violence literature, two sometimes conflicting
objectives emerge: giving voice to battered women from diverse,
and often ignored, social locations and cultural backgrounds,
while still focusing on the structural inequalities (i.e., race, gen-
der, class, sexuality) that constrain and shape the lives of battered
women, albeit in different ways. These conflicting theoretical per-
spectives have been described as the race, class, gender perspec-
tive and the structural perspective (Andersen & Collins, 2001;
Mann & Grimes, 2001).
As Mann and Grimes (2001) suggest, the race, class, gender
perspective represents a rapidly emerging area of scholarship
that attempts to address social problems and to represent the
interests and voices of a vast array of marginalized peoples.
Within gender studies, the race, class, gender analysis is known
by different names, including “intersectionality theory, integra-
tive feminism, the women of color or multiracial perspectives,
and multicultural feminism. . . . By any of these names, its focus
on multiple oppressions and difference has been its hallmark”
(Mann, 2000, p. 477). A guiding principle of race, class, gender
analysis is its focus on the “simultaneous, multiple and interlock-
ing oppressions of individuals” (Mann & Grimes, 2001, p. 8).
Although this analysis has distinct structural elements, this is
rarely its focus. Rather, emphasis is on difference and the unique
struggles it presents to each group. Andersen and Collins (2001)
distinguish a structural approach as requiring “analysis and criti-
cism of existing systems of power and privilege; otherwise,
understanding diversity becomes just one more privilege for
40 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / January 2005

those with the greatest access to” resources and power. They go
on to say that

analyzing race, class, and gender as they shape different group

experiences also involves issues of power, privilege, and equity.
This means more than just knowing the cultures of an array of
human groups. It means recognizing and analyzing the hierarchies
and systems of domination that permeate society and that system-
atically exploit and control people. (pp. 5-6)

Both theoretical perspectives are represented throughout the

emerging domestic violence literature; however, of the three
interlocking systems of domination, class analysis is arguably the
least developed (in comparison to race and gender) in this body of
work. This article includes both the race, class, gender or
intersectionalities perspective and the social structural perspec-
tive. We are of the opinion that one without the other will not pro-
vide battered women from diverse backgrounds with the kinds of
personal and social change required for safety and growth at the
individual and communal levels.
This article outlines the challenges that intersectional (race,
class, gender approach) and structural approaches present to the
traditional feminist framework of domestic violence; it goes on to
outline some of the contributions provided by these approaches.
The first part of this article focuses on the special challenges
that intersectional and structural approaches present to the main-
stream domestic violence literature. These new approaches ques-
tion the monolithic nature of woman battering, expand defini-
tions of woman battering to include culturally specific forms of
abuse, call for a greater emphasis on the structural causes of
woman battering, caution against disempowering representa-
tions of marginalized battered women, and explore the complex
role of culture in understanding woman abuse and our responses
to it. In the second half of the article, we will turn our attention to
the many methodological and practical implications of inter-
sectional and structural approaches to domestic violence. Particu-
lar attention will be paid to emancipatory and culturally com-
petent approaches to dealing with woman abuse.
 Sokoloff, Dupont / INTERSECTIONS OF RACE, CLASS, AND GENDER 41

CHALLENGES PRESENTED BY
INTERSECTIONAL AND STRUCTURAL
APPROACHES TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

QUESTIONING THE UNIVERSALITY

OF WOMAN BATTERING

The traditional feminist approach to domestic violence has

generally been to emphasize the common experiences of battered
women in the interests of forging a strong feminist movement to
end woman abuse. However, this approach has increasingly been
questioned by scholars and activists who recognize the need to
give voice to women marginalized by the largely White, middle-
class feminist movement (Richie, 2000; Ristock, 2002; Russo,
2002). Kanuha (1996) is critical of the use of generalizations about
battered women. The suggestion that domestic violence affects
“every person, across race, class, nationality, and religious lines”
equally is “not only a token attempt at inclusion of diverse per-
spectives but also evidence of sloppy research and theory build-
ing” (p. 40). She suggests that the “tag line that domestic violence
affects everyone equally trivializes both the dimensions that
underlie the experiences of these particular abuse victims and
more important, the ways we analyze the prevalence and impact
of violence against them” (p. 41). Similarly, Richie (2000) chal-
lenges this notion of universal risk: Poor women of color are
“most likely to be in both dangerous intimate relationships and
dangerous social positions” (p. 1136). She argues that the antivio-
lence movement’s avoidance of a race and class analysis of vio-
lence against women “seriously compromises the transgressive
and transformative potential of the antiviolence movement’s
potential [to] radically critique various forms of social domina-
tion” (p. 1135). The failure to address the multiple oppressions of
poor women of color jeopardizes the validity and legitimacy of
the antiviolence movement.

QUESTIONING TRADITIONAL DEFINITIONS

OF WOMAN BATTERING

Increasingly, domestic violence scholars are questioning tradi-

tional methods of defining and measuring domestic violence
42 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / January 2005

(Kanuha, 1996). The prevalence of domestic violence cannot ade-

quately be measured without taking into account the fact that dif-
ferent cultures define this violence differently (Yoshihama, 1999).
Yoshihama (1999) suggests that there should be alternative means
of measuring domestic violence. She argues that there are major
limitations to mainstream measures of domestic violence because
they lack sociocultural contexts: “What is considered domestic
violence or a specific meaning a woman may give to her partner’s
act is partly based on the interviewee’s viewpoint shaped by her
sociocultural background” (p. 873). For example, in Japan, over-
turning a dining table is a culturally specific form of abuse that
questions the woman’s legitimate role in the family. Or by Japa-
nese standards, dousing a woman with liquid connotes that she is
impure or contaminated. It is interesting that some respondents
rated these culturally specific forms of abuse as being consider-
ably more severe than acts such as pushing, grabbing, slapping,
and throwing objects, acts that some of the women did not consid-
er to be abusive at all. Similarly, Garfield (2001) suggests that Afri-
can American women’s perceptions of violence may differ from
mainstream definitions as well as in the way various forms of vio-
lence are experienced. In a study involving life history interviews
with nine African American women, Garfield found that the
women did not always regard physical aggression as violence,
whereas acts of racism were uniformly experienced as such.
These findings suggest that there are different definitions of
domestic violence as well as varying perceptions of what
constitutes severe versus milder forms of abuse.
Yoshihama’s (1999) findings suggest that our definition of
domestic violence is incomplete if it does not include the specific
forms of abuse that are particular to women’s cultural back-
grounds. This does not mean that domestic violence is relative so
much as that women must be able to voice their concerns about
how violated they feel within a cultural framework that is
meaningful to them.

QUESTIONING THE PRIMACY OF GENDER INEQUALITY

IN EXPLANATIONS OF WOMAN BATTERING

The traditional feminist perspective argues that violence

against women is a consequence of socially constructed and
 Sokoloff, Dupont / INTERSECTIONS OF RACE, CLASS, AND GENDER 43

culturally approved gender inequality (Yllo, 1993). This approach

is far superior than prior theoretical models of woman battering,
which often blamed the victim for her circumstances or patho-
logized battered women. However, scholars, survivors, advo-
cates, and activists, particularly women of color and lesbians, are
challenging the traditional feminist view that gender inequality is
the primary factor determining domestic violence.
Bograd (1999) suggests that domestic violence is not a mono-
lithic phenomenon and that “intersectionalities color the mean-
ing and nature of domestic violence, how it is experienced by self
and responded to by others, how personal and social conse-
quences are represented, and how and whether escape and safety
can be obtained” (p. 276). We exist in social contexts created by the
intersections of systems of power (e.g., race, class, gender, and
sexual orientation) and oppression (e.g., prejudice, class stratifi-
cation, gender inequality, and heterosexist bias). No dimension,
such as gender inequality, is privileged in explaining domestic
violence. Most important, gender inequality itself is modified by
its intersection with other systems of power and oppression.
This intersectionality of race, class, and gender has real-life
consequences for many battered women who are seeking safety:
“Individuals may have internalized ideologies antithetical to dis-
closure of violence” (Bograd, 1999, p. 281). For example, a Viet-
namese woman who has been taught that saving face and family
unity preempt individual safety will be reluctant to seek outside
help for domestic violence (Bui & Morash, 1999). As a member of
a devalued racial identity, some women of color, particularly Afri-
can American women, may fear that calling the police will subject
their partners to racist treatment by the criminal justice system as
well as confirm racist stereotypes of Blacks as violent (Richie,
2000; Websdale, 1999). Furthermore, lesbians who are not out, or
voluntarily open about their sexual orientations, may remain
silent about the abuse in their relationships (Butler, 1999; Ristock,
2002).
A major challenge to traditional feminist models of domestic
violence comes from theories on lesbian battering (Leventhal &
Lundy, 1999; Renzetti, 1998; Ristock, 2002). The fact that both
abuser and victim are women calls into question the primacy of
gender inequality in explaining the dynamics of lesbian battering.
Renzetti (1998) suggests that although there are many similarities
44 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / January 2005

between heterosexual battering and lesbian battering (e.g., the

intent of abuse is to assert power and control over one’s intimate
partner), the two phenomena are not the same. An important fac-
tor of lesbian battering is that the abuse occurs within the greater
context of homophobia in society. Outing, or the threat of inform-
ing others that the victim or survivor is gay or lesbian, is a tactic
often used by batterers in lesbian relationships to control their
partners. Homophobia may prevent many lesbians from leaving
abusive relationships because they may fear negative responses
by police, family members, religious institutions, social services,
or battered women’s organizations. Internalized homophobia
may also be a contributing factor to domestic violence in lesbian
relationships (Renzetti, 1998). The challenge becomes even more
apparent and more complicated as transgendered and inter-
sexed survivors of domestic violence transcend stereotypes of
gender expression or physical sex (Courvant & Cook-Daniels,
2000-2001).
And although controversial, there is considerable empirical
evidence suggesting that the most severe and lethal domestic vio-
lence occurs disproportionately among low-income women of
color (Benson & Fox, 2004; Browne & Bassuk, 1997; Hampton,
Carillo, & Kim, 1998; Raphael, 2000; Rennison & Planty, 2003;
Websdale, 1999; C. West, 2004, 2005). Studies consistently find
that the majority of homeless women were once victims of domes-
tic violence (Browne & Bassuk, 1997) and that more than half of all
women receiving public assistance were once victims of domestic
violence (Lyon, 1998). These findings seriously challenge the
mainstream feminist contention that domestic violence affects all
women equally.
Finally, the need to question the primacy of gender becomes
apparent when one realizes that the violence and control by an
individual batterer is not the only form of violence experienced by
marginalized battered women. Instead, the lack of adequate insti-
tutional support in the form of social services and public housing
as well as the intrusions and coercive controls by the state and its
agencies (e.g., welfare) is another level of violence experienced by
battered women, which occur in ways that are racialized as well
as gendered and classed (Coker, 2000; Razack, 1998; Stark, 1995).
 Sokoloff, Dupont / INTERSECTIONS OF RACE, CLASS, AND GENDER 45

TENSIONS BETWEEN CULTURE

AND STRUCTURE

By presenting the multiplicity of diverse women’s lived experi-

ences and cultural differences, there is the potential of “annihilat-
ing group concepts like gender, race, and class” (Mann, 2000) and
of downplaying the significant role that racism, sexism, social
class, heterosexism, and other forms of structural discrimination
have on battered women. Our position is that the crucial task of
giving voice to marginalized and oppressed women who are bat-
tered should not obscure the reality that “race, class, and gen-
der . . . [are] structures of oppression that are somehow larger than
the individuals who produce them” (Mann & Grimes, 2001, p. 11)
and are integral to understanding domestic violence in diverse
communities. As Collins (1998) argues, the treatment of cultural
differences must not “erase [the need to look at] structural
power” (p. 149), or it will undercut social change or the political
activism that is required for such changes. Ideally, scholars would
emphasize the structural underpinnings of abuse while not deny-
ing the existence of real differences among battered women from
diverse backgrounds. In short, although culture is crucial to
understanding and combating domestic violence, we cannot rest
on simplistic notions of culture. Rather, we must address how dif-
ferent communities’ cultural experiences of violence are medi-
ated through structural forms of oppression, such as racism,
colonialism, economic exploitation, heterosexism, and the like.

TENSIONS BETWEEN CULTURE AND GENDER:

ATTRIBUTING BLAME FOR DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE ONTO OTHER CULTURES

Many domestic violence scholars are struggling with the role

that culture may play in perpetuating domestic violence and how
to talk about the relationship between the two. Dasgupta (1998)
cautions us that all too often, there is a quick allocation of blame to
an immigrant’s culture when discussing domestic violence:

Many White Americans presume that “other” cultures, especially

minority ones, are far more accepting of woman abuse than the
46 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / January 2005

U.S. culture. . . . American mainstream society still likes to believe

that woman abuse is limited to minority ethnic communities,
lower socio-economic stratification, and individuals with dark
skin colors. The impact of this public violence of imperialism,
classism, and racism on battering in the private sphere of home
and intimate relationships has, unfortunately, received little
research. (pp. 212-213)

The goal is to reject simplistic analyses of the role of culture in

domestic violence. Although culture may be used to justify vio-
lence against women, there is a danger of presenting the role of
culture in domestic violence as a purely negative force. All too
often, the fact that cultural practices and beliefs can serve as pro-
tective factors for battered women (Dasgupta & Warrier, 1996;
Kaufman Kantor, Jasinski, & Aldarondo, 1994) is ignored or
denied.
On the other hand, cultural explanations can and have been
used to justify violence against women and have arguably
resulted in a certain degree of moral relativism. For example,
there are accounts of batterers who have used cultural defenses to
justify brutal acts against their female partners (Gallin, 1994;
Maguigan, 1995). According to Gallin (1994), cultural evidence
has been used primarily to undermine the progress that has been
made in the United States to reduce violence experienced by
women and children. In the case of People v. Dong Lu Chen, a Chi-
nese immigrant brutally killed his wife by bludgeoning her with a
claw hammer after learning of her infidelity. The trial court admit-
ted defense testimony from an anthropologist that Chen’s rage
and violent impulses were normal in his culture of origin and that
in China, others would have intervened to prevent him from com-
mitting homicide. Largely based on this cultural evidence, the
defendant was convicted of manslaughter and was only
sentenced to probation (Maguigan, 1995, p. 37).
When oppression and violence occur in communities of color
or immigrant communities, culture is often alleged to have a par-
ticularly influential explanatory power. Specific cases are not con-
ceptualized as reflecting individual behavior; instead, entire
groups are stereotyped (Pratt & Sokoloff, 2005). As Volpp (2005)
argues, the behavior of devalued groups is widely perceived as
more culturally determined than that of the dominant culture.
The powerful are depicted as having no culture, other than the
 Sokoloff, Dupont / INTERSECTIONS OF RACE, CLASS, AND GENDER 47

universal culture of civilization. The belief that non-White others

are said to engage in oppressive and misogynistic cultural prac-
tices fits long-standing biases and serves to downplay the exis-
tence of culturally prescribed and equally horrendous acts of vio-
lence against women in White Western communities.
Domestic violence scholars struggling to achieve a balance
between the role of culture and structure make it clear that culture
should not be confused with patriarchy. Instead, we should look
at how patriarchy operates differently in different cultures
(Almeida & Dolan-Delvecchio, 1999; Baker, Gregware, & Cassidy,
1999; Dasgupta, 1998). Almeida and Dolan-Delvecchio (1999)
argue that

wife battering is not culture; dowries, wife burning, and female

infanticide are not culture; the forced use of purdah or veiling for
women are not culture; foot-binding and the practice of concu-
bines among the Chinese are not culture. These are traditional
patriarchal customs that men have practiced, and women have
accepted, for generations. (p. 667)

Or as Razack (1998) cautions, “violence [against women] in immi-

grant communities is viewed as a cultural attribute rather than
the product of male domination that is inextricably bound up
with racism” (p. 57). Sexual and other violence against women in
Native communities and communities of color must be under-
stood in the context of White supremacy, patriarchy, colonialism,
and economic exploitation of marginalized communities, not as if
such violence is inherent in the culture.

REPRESENTING MARGINALIZED WOMEN

Some domestic violence scholars question how research find-

ings may affect women who are already severely disadvantaged.
They emphasize the need for researchers to think about how their
work could be misused to create policies to further alienate and
disempower some battered women. As well, these scholars em-
phasize that information about domestic violence in marginal-
ized communities must be presented in such a way that their find-
ings do not negatively affect marginalized battered women and
survivors or their partners or reinforce negative stereotypes about
them.
48 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / January 2005

One dilemma is the problem of how to report race and class dif-
ferences in domestic violence prevalence rates. This literature
indicates that there is tremendous diversity among women
regarding the prevalence, nature, and impact of domestic vio-
lence, even within ethnic, racial, religious, and socioeconomic
groups and sexual orientations (Hampton et al., 1998; C. West,
2005). Several studies indicate that Black women are severely
abused and murdered at significantly higher rates (Hampton
et al., 1998; Websdale, 1999; C. West, 2005) than their representa-
tion in the population.
By itself, this information serves little purpose but to reinforce
negative stereotypes about African Americans. One of the solu-
tions to this problem of representation is to contextualize these
findings within a structural framework. An emerging body of
research offers support, in large part, for an economic or struc-
tural explanation for differential prevalence rates. Many studies
on intimate partner violence have found that when socioeco-
nomic factors are controlled, racial and ethnic differences in the
rate of intimate partner violence largely disappear (Hampton
et al., 1998; Rennison & Planty, 2005). This finding suggests that at
least one major underlying reason for the greater level of domes-
tic violence among African Americans is not attributable to racial
and cultural factors but to the high and extreme levels of poverty
in Black communities. Moreover, it is becoming increasingly clear
that not only is abuse more likely to be found among impover-
ished African Americans, they are also more likely to be young,
unemployed urban residents (Hampton et al., 1998; C. West,
2005). Thus, age, employment status, residence, poverty, social
embeddedness, and isolation combine to explain the higher rates
of abuse within African American communities, not race or
culture, per se.
Despite the best intentions, there is always the danger that
research findings will be misconstrued or deliberately used
against vulnerable populations, even when scholars make every
effort to represent their findings in a favorable light. To prevent
this from happening, Kanuha (1996) argues that research with
marginalized populations requires a method of research that is
“participatory, empowering, and based in a community action
model” (p. 45). Such culturally competent research involves col-
laborative research efforts with the people who are directly
 Sokoloff, Dupont / INTERSECTIONS OF RACE, CLASS, AND GENDER 49

affected by and living with domestic violence. By doing so,

scholars can be responsive to the concerns of marginalized
communities.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO FEMINIST
METHODOLOGIES AND PRACTICES

GIVING VOICE TO MARGINALIZED WOMEN

The intersectional approach provides ways to legitimate the

experiences of women who have been marginalized and hidden
from dominant cultural discourses about battered women. This
growing body of literature details the experiences of battered
women from diverse racial, ethnic, socioeconomic class, religious,
sexual orientation, and immigrant backgrounds. These voices
and experiences “must be heard across different perspectives,
from different theoretical disciplines, and in different forms”
(Kanuha, 1996, p. 46). This endeavor is necessary to address the
paucity of such perspectives in the mainstream literature. On a
practical level, such accounts will likely also improve the
response to victims and survivors from diverse backgrounds.

ENCOURAGING ACTIVISM THAT

PLACES WOMEN TYPICALLY AT THE
MARGINS IN THE CENTER

The intersectional and structural approaches to domestic vio-

lence offer necessary critiques of the battered women’s move-
ment, which has traditionally failed to represent battered women
most at the margins—“women of color, lesbians, poor women,
immigrant women, women with disabilities and other women for
whom gender is but a part of their marginalized status” (Kanuha,
1994, p. 45). Although this situation is not easily resolved, there are
many social movements asserting the particular problems and
addressing the particular needs of marginalized battered women
in their communities (Abraham, 1995; Sun-Hee Park, 1997).
The emergence of South Asian Women’s Organizations across
the country suggests that “women who derive their identification
from both ethnicity and gender” require a space where they can
address the complex issues that arise from such a position (Abra-
50 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / January 2005

ham, 1995, p. 468). These organizations generally provide psy-

chological, social, legal, and economic support to South Asian
battered women and raise community awareness of the problem
within the South Asian community. They encourage others,
within and outside the community, to address the intersection of
ethnicity and gender when dealing with the issue of domestic vio-
lence. Moreover, they politicize the position of battered South
Asian Indian women, arguing that battering is much more than
an individual problem; it is a social problem of the community
(Abraham, 1995, 2000).
Despite their successes, domestic violence scholars, research-
ers, activists, and survivors make it clear that domestic violence
organizations attempting to address ethnicity, race, and gender
face considerable challenges. One example bears noting: that of a
community-based Korean domestic violence hotline. The women
at the hotline have struggled to come to terms with the tensions
between the hotline and the Korean American community it
serves, as well as with the conflicts it has with mainstream femi-
nist organizations with which it shares much of its ideology. On
one hand, the hotline serves an immigrant community whose tra-
ditional, patriarchal values generally conflict with its feminist,
egalitarian beliefs and organizational structure. The hotline’s suc-
cess also disturbs the Korean community’s sense of unity and
family cohesion by drawing attention to domestic violence within
the Korean family. The pressure to keep family secrets hidden is
magnified in immigrant communities that feel pressured to coun-
ter negative stereotypes of their members (Dasgupta, 1998). On
the other hand, mainstream domestic violence agencies tend to
view immigration policy as outside their purview, causing ten-
sion between the Korean hotline and these mainstream agencies.
Hotline members consequently straddle two worlds to serve
women who occupy both.

CALLING FOR CULTURALLY COMPETENT

SERVICES FOR BATTERED WOMEN

Both cross-cultural and multicultural domestic violence stud-

ies make it clear that there is no one-size-fits-all explanation for
domestic violence and that, consequently, solutions must reflect
these differences (Campbell, 1999; Dasgupta, 1998; Gondolf, 1998;
 Sokoloff, Dupont / INTERSECTIONS OF RACE, CLASS, AND GENDER 51

Richie, 2000). “Strategies based on the experiences of women who

do not share the same class and race backgrounds will be of lim-
ited utility for those whose lives are shaped by a different set of
obstacles” (Crenshaw, 1994, p. 96). Similarly, battered women
who have different religious backgrounds, sexual orientations,
and nations of origin require different interventions as well. For
example, the primary concern of poorly housed battered women
may be to secure safe housing (Bassuk, 1995; Websdale & John-
son, 1997) and to apply for welfare (Josephson, 2002), whereas
immigrant battered women may predominantly require bicul-
tural and bilingual services (Rivera, 1997). In addition, although
lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, and intersexed (LBTI) battered
women may need services that avowedly are not homophobic or
biphobic and are explicitly open and accepting of LBTI survivors
(Butler, 1999; Courvant & Cook-Daniels, 2000-2001; Leventhal &
Lundy, 1999), some religious women, such as Muslims and
Orthodox Jews, may require special accommodations at shelters
regarding (e.g., kosher) food preparation (Horsburgh, 1995). And
of course, many women require many of these services all at once.
Multicultural perspectives on domestic violence support the
use of culturally competent services for both victims and perpe-
trators. Cultural competence requires an understanding of the
cultural differences of clients as well as the particular cultural and
structural needs that different communities have (Almeida &
Lockard, 2005; Gondolf, 1998; Rivera, 1997). Gondolf (1998)
suggests that a culture-blind approach is counterproductive to
achieving cultural competence. He suggests that service provid-
ers, particularly counselors, must educate themselves about how
cultural and ethnic differences can affect the therapeutic process.
He advises clinicians to further their understanding of diverse
racial and ethnic groups so that they can be alert to the ways in
which racial and ethnic differences may affect the assessment of
woman battering. For example, Gondolf (1998) explains that
Latina women are generally socialized to be nurturing and sub-
missive in accordance with the cultural concept of marianismo,
whereas Latino men are encouraged to be macho or domineering.
Such confining gender roles, in combination with cultural prohi-
bitions against disclosing abuse to outsiders, may result in the
reluctance of many Latinas to report abuse to counselors. Latinas
who are immigrants may also fear legal problems, loss of services,
52 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / January 2005

or deportation. Clinicians need to be aware of such culturally spe-

cific barriers to help-seeking among different racial and ethnic
groups. On the other hand, as Gondolf (1998) makes clear, clini-
cians should be wary of facile categorizations of women based on
race and ethnicity.
At the same time, scholars emphasize that providing culturally
competent services without providing for changes in the under-
lying and intersecting structural conditions of poverty, isolation,
racism, sexism, and homophobia will not provide battered
women with the means to significantly change their own situa-
tion and that of their battered sisters (DeKeseredy & MacLeod,
1997; Incite!, n.d.; Richie, 2000). As Incite! (n.d.), a group of
Women of Color Against Violence, makes clear, battered women
advocates must adopt antiviolence strategies that are mindful of
the larger structures of violence that shape the lives of poor bat-
tered women of color: “That is, strategies designed to combat vio-
lence within communities (sexual/domestic violence) must be
linked to strategies that combat violence directed against commu-
nities (i.e., police brutality, prisons, racism, economic exploita-
tion, etc.)” (p. 1). One without the other is inadequate; for battered
women on the margins of society, the two are intimately
connected.
Structural solutions that address some of the contributing and
aggravating factors associated with domestic violence are
required: more public housing and generally more affordable
housing, domestic violence shelters, and long-term transitional
housing for women and their children (Websdale & Johnson,
1997); access to public education so that battered women without
skills or job experience will be eligible for well-paying jobs (Fine &
Weis, 2000); available jobs with living wages; quality, affordable
child care (Fine & Weis, 2000); culturally competent services
(Almeida & Lockard, 2005; Gondolf, 1998); and a flexible, humane
welfare policy that can respond to battered women’s needs on a
case-by-case basis (Lyon, 1998). However, as Coker (2000)
reminds us, no matter how well we are able to redistribute mate-
rial resources to the most marginalized battered women in a patri-
archal, racist, capitalist society, these economic reforms will not
ultimately result in the radical social change needed to under-
mine the whole structure of violence against poor communities of
color and battered women in them.
 Sokoloff, Dupont / INTERSECTIONS OF RACE, CLASS, AND GENDER 53

DEBUNKING STEREOTYPICAL
IMAGES OF BATTERED WOMEN

Many domestic violence scholars challenge stereotypical

images of battered women in both popular culture and traditional
domestic violence literature (Allard, 1991; Ammons, 1995; Stark,
1995). Much of this literature explains how stereotypes of Black
women have prevented them from successfully using certain
legal defenses, including the Battered Woman Syndrome (Allard,
1991; Stark, 1995). Others suggest that stereotypical perceptions
of Black women as aggressive, resilient, and immune to the effects
of violence have prevented Black women from receiving equal
and sympathetic treatment in the criminal justice system,
particularly by police officers (Ammons, 1995).
Another image that has been challenged is that of the passive,
helpless victim. This literature suggests that such an image has
been based largely on studies of White, middle-class women.
Women who resist the abuse or fight back have been character-
ized as bad women (Allard, 1991; Ammons, 1995; Kanuha, 1996;
Richie, 1996), and race plays a major role in the cultural distinc-
tion between who is considered good and who is considered bad
(Allard, 1991).
On the other hand, many domestic violence scholars make it
clear that we cannot generalize about all White women either
(Waits, 1998; Weis, Fine, Proweller, Bertram, & Marusza, 1998). In
their qualitative study of poor and working-class White women,
Weis et al. (1998) remind us that White women are not monolithic
in their responses to domestic violence. In fact, the main reason
for their staying in abusive relationships has to do with economic
concerns, not problems of passivity or psychological dependency.
In Abraham’s (2000) study of South Asian battered women’s
strategies of resistance, she found that contrary to popular images
of South Asian women as passive, the women in her study used
many creative tactics to challenge their abusers’ power and con-
trol. Women’s resistance strategies included a wide range of tac-
tics, such as silence, avoidance, confrontation, hiding, talking
back, hitting back, challenging the abuser’s fiscal control, contem-
plating and resisting suicide, and seeking both informal and insti-
tutional help. Contrary to all expectations, at some point in their
relationships, all of the women in her study had left the abusive
relationships. These findings are consistent with other studies on
54 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / January 2005

battered women, suggesting that battered women are not passive

or helpless in the face of abuse (Gondolf & Fisher, 1988) but that
they fight back and resist to the extent they are able, given the
structural and cultural constraints they face.

PROVIDING NEW THEORETICAL

FRAMEWORKS

Some domestic violence theorists have applied the concept of

intersectionality to explain the added difficulties that battered
women from the margins experience. As Bograd (1999) explains,
“the trauma of domestic violence is amplified by further victim-
ization outside of the intimate relationship, as the psychological
consequences of battering may be compounded by the ‘micro-
aggressions’ of racism, heterosexism, and classism in and out of
the reference group” (p. 281). Efforts to seek safety may therefore
expose many battered women to additional social risks and deg-
radations. She also reminds us that domestic violence does not
have a singular impact on all families:

Not only do different patterns of domestic violence have different

consequences for different families, intersectionality asks us to
integrate into theory and practice the simple recognition that, for
many families, domestic violence is not the only or primary vio-
lence shaping family life. Intersectionality also requires that we
develop theories that go beyond single-factor descriptions of
domestic violence, such as gender inequality. (p. 283)

Increasingly, domestic violence theorists urge us to reject the

idea that battered women are helpless and lack agency: “In our
society, agency and victimization are each known by the absence
of the other: you are an agent if you are not a victim, and you are a
victim if you are in no way an agent” (Mahoney, 1994, p. 64). As
hooks (1989) and Collins (1998) argue, oppressed people cannot
afford to feel powerless. Collins argues that “while identifying
patterns of victimization remains important, because it strips
African American women of agency, focusing on victimization
can function as a mechanism of control” (p. 928). Battered Black
women, she stresses, must acknowledge and deal with their
victimization without being paralyzed by it. This emerging char-
acterization of battered women, the survivor-empowerment
 Sokoloff, Dupont / INTERSECTIONS OF RACE, CLASS, AND GENDER 55

approach, “assumes strength even in the most devastated survi-

vor or the most troubled current victim of violence, oppression, or
degradation” (Browne, 1998, p. 97). The goal is for us to simulta-
neously acknowledge the existence of victimization and agency
among all battered women and how they may play themselves
out differently depending on social and historical circumstances.

FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE:

ALTERNATIVE VISIONS TO DEALING
WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Many women of color feel ambivalent about using the police to

deal with domestic violence (Richie, 1996; Rivera, 1997). Richie
(2000) argues that there has been an overreliance on law enforce-
ment to deal with social problems in poor communities of color
and that this overreliance has had several unintended negative
consequences: increased use of force, mass incarceration of young
men of color, and police brutality. These conditions create ten-
sions for poor women of color between the need for some kind of
state intervention to protect them from abuse in their homes and
the recognition that many of the women most in need of such pro-
tection are made more vulnerable by these very interventions.
Thus, Coker (2001) elaborates at least three ways that state inter-
vention can cause more intrusion in the lives of and harm to poor
battered women of color by increasing the risks of (a) arrest of
those very same battered women for domestic violence, (b)
unwarranted removal by the state of children from women who
have been battered, and (c) prosecution of battered women
involved, even peripherally, in criminal conduct (sometimes
related to their being abused). For state interventions to have any
hope of being useful to poor minority battered women, Coker
(2001) argues that two sets of conditions are necessary: First is the
need for significant material resources to be made available to the
poorest and most disadvantaged battered women to better their
chances of success in leaving or changing the immediate battering
situation, and second is the need for effective battered women’s
organizations and coalitions to act as institutional reformers by
monitoring police, prosecutorial, and judicial responses as well as
to be advocates for the particular needs of individual battered
women from marginalized communities.
56 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / January 2005

Because of the problems related to relying on the criminal jus-

tice system, many domestic violence scholars are looking to insti-
tutions other than just the criminal justice system to find solutions
to woman abuse (Almeida & Lockard, in press; Richie & Kanuha,
1993; T. West, 1999). These scholars recognize that the safety of
battered women and their children must be the primary concern
of policy makers. This means that providing sanctions to batterers
and sanctuaries for victims and survivors is crucial (Campbell,
1999). However, there are many ways to achieve these two aims
without necessarily relying on typical law enforcement
responses. One possible sanction is public shaming of the batterer
as a way to change public opinion about domestic violence
(Campbell, 1999). Although quite controversial (Goel, 2000),
another alternative to mainstream legal approaches to domestic
violence is a form of restorative justice used by the Navajo, which
is called peacemaking.
Peacemaking is an informal method of adjudication in which a
peacemaker who is familiar with Navajo common law and tradi-
tional Navajo stories guides disputing parties to develop a just
resolution (Coker, 1999). Coker (1999) suggests that peacemaking
has many advantages over formal legal approaches to domestic
violence. It often offers women tangible material support and
assistance including reparations (nalyeh). Because of its unique
approach, peacemaking may be better equipped to cut through
batterers’ denial and hold them accountable for their behavior.
Peacemakers often use traditional Navajo stories with themes of
egalitarianism to challenge batterers’ attitudes about women and
male dominance. Peacemaking can also disrupt the familial sup-
port for battering that often exists by confronting both the batterer
and his family (Coker, 1999). However, Goel (2000) cautions that
using peacemaking can increase the problems that Native Ameri-
can battered women face when these approaches are applied
without a full understanding of the history on which they are
based. She argues that peacemaking should not be used for
domestic violence until First Nation Canadian and Native Ameri-
can women are first given equal status in their communities,
something that was taken away from them under colonization.
Another alternative, suggested by the North Gottingen Drop-
In Centre in Halifax, Nova Scotia, is to reduce economic inequal-
ity to prevent domestic abuse. Here, a group of immigrant and
 Sokoloff, Dupont / INTERSECTIONS OF RACE, CLASS, AND GENDER 57

refugee women, many of whom were victims of woman abuse,

torture, political persecution, and the violence of poverty, created
an informal support group out of which came a cooperative, a
catering business in which they all worked, assistance with hous-
ing needs, shared child care, and emotional support (DeKeseredy
& MacLeod, 1997, p. 169).
Other scholars cite the importance of antiviolence movements
to address domestic violence in an honest and self-reflective man-
ner. Collins (1998) suggests that for antiviolence movements to be
successful, participants must reject simplistic views of violence
that assume that “men dominate women, Whites oppress people
of color, and oppressors victimize the oppressed” (p. 936). Collins
calls for a transversal politics that recognizes how the intersec-
tions of race and gender affect antiviolence social movements and
calls for members to examine the possible ways in which they
both experience victimization and bear some responsibility for
systemic violence targeted at other groups. She argues that it is
not sufficient to “build an alliance on the foundation of shared
victimization” (p. 934). Although White women and women of
color share a group history of domestic and sexual violence
against them by men, White women must recognize the benefits
that they receive from their White skin privilege. Similarly, claims
by some African American men that racial oppression is more
fundamental than gender oppression should be seen as an un-
willingness on their part to take responsibility for their victimiza-
tion of African American women. Collins suggests that successful
antiviolence coalition building requires a view of violence
grounded in intersectionality, critical self-reflection by partici-
pants regarding their own responsibility for perpetuating oppres-
sion, and empathy (not sympathy) for the suffering of others.
Still, other scholars emphasize the important role that religious
institutions can play in addressing domestic violence (Ayyub,
2000; Horsburgh, 1995; T. West, 1999). T. West (1999) calls for Black
churches to take an active stand against violence perpetrated
against African American women. This ethic of resistance against
domestic violence must include both political and spiritual
aspects because doing so “can counter the barrage of subjugating
influences that are a part of so many of the prevailing communal
responses to intimate violence” (p. 188). She calls for Black
churches to reinforce the fact that God does not require women to
58 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / January 2005

suffer and that the church must be engaged in a continual process

of self-critique, focusing on removing any messages that may
directly or indirectly reinforce the acceptability of woman abuse.
T. West (1999) urges churches to integrate rituals to resist violence
into their internal practices and community outreach efforts. This
includes eliminating any biases from church doctrine and prac-
tice. Rituals might include prayer vigils in support for women’s
rights or creating songs and prayers that address women’s con-
cerns. According to T. West (1999), antiviolence training should be
provided to youths and adults in all church forums where ideals
about what it means to be a Christian are taught.
Another alternative approach to responding to domestic vio-
lence is based on the Cultural Context Model (CCM), a holistic
treatment approach that is used with batterers and their families
at some domestic violence agencies (Almeida & Lockard, 2005).
This approach requires abusers to take responsibility for their vio-
lence and supports the empowerment of victims and children by
providing a wide range of services to the entire family. The CCM
rejects the commonly held belief that domestic violence is the
product of other cultural traditions by identifying domestic vio-
lence as a universal pattern of domination and control. At the
same time, this therapeutic model acknowledges the powerful
impact that social, cultural, and structural forces can have on fam-
ilies. It links gender ideology and subordination in individual
couples with experiences of racial subordination and coloniza-
tion in marginalized communities, thereby linking the struggle
for gender equality with the struggles for racial and economic jus-
tice, without requiring the women to choose between cultural
identity or group membership and their safety and autonomy.
Given the racism, classism, sexism, and homophobia inherent
in (i.e., structured into) the criminal justice system, the CCM
offers battered women an alternative approach. A unique aspect
of the program includes men’s and women’s culture circles,
where participants can discuss the ways in which structural fac-
tors may help shape peoples’ choices with regard to domestic vio-
lence. Participants are also assigned a sponsor who provides
ongoing support with a focus on accountability for batterers and
empowerment for victims and survivors. Although this model
places full responsibility for violence on abusers, it also
 Sokoloff, Dupont / INTERSECTIONS OF RACE, CLASS, AND GENDER 59

recognizes the impact of a number of social forces, including both

structure and culture, on families. As the authors suggest,

This system of intervention offers a range of new options: the pos-

sibility of returning to their now nonviolent partners, the possibil-
ity of children rebuilding relationships with their abusive parent,
the possibility of having a civil and safe divorce, and last, the possi-
bility of maintaining safety through community rather than crimi-
nal justice intervention. (Almeida & Lockard, 2005, p. 25)

Several programs in the Latino community share similar features

to the CCM (Garza, 2001).

CONCLUSION

There is an emerging body of scholarly work that attempts to

acknowledge both the individual lived experiences of diverse
battered women and the structural underpinnings of domestic
violence in culturally diverse communities. However, this area of
scholarship is arguably in the midst of an identity crisis. One of
the major criticisms of this literature is that it underemphasizes
the role of class as an explanatory model in favor of other types
of oppressions (i.e., racism, gender inequality, heterosexism).
According to Gimenez (2001), class analysis is the least developed
in the trinity of race, class, and gender analysis in current socio-
logical scholarship.
Much of the new domestic violence literature focuses on the
differences between battered women and their polyvocality,
which may unwittingly undermine structural analyses. The idea,
advocated by many scholars, that every individual has both a
race, class, gender identity and a “unique position of penalty and
privilege, such that individuals can simultaneously be oppressed
and oppressors” (Collins, 1998, p. 28) can also be problematic. All
too often, this perspective seems to regard race, class, and gender
as individual identity characteristics, not as interlocking social
structures that perpetuate inequality. Considering these critiques,
we agree with Mann and Grimes (2001) that for scholarship on
domestic violence to remain emancipatory, it must emphasize
both individual and structural analyses of race, class, and gender
60 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / January 2005

inequality and marginalization in culturally diverse com-

munities. In this way, the pursuit of both equality and safety is
more possible in battered women’s daily struggles for survival for
themselves, their children, the men in their lives, and their com-
munities.

REFERENCES

Abraham, M. (1995). Ethnicity, gender and marital violence: South Asian women’s organi-
zations in the United States. Gender & Society, 9, 450-468.
Abraham, M. (2000). Fighting back: Abused women’s strategies of resistance. In M. Abra-
ham (Ed.), Speaking the unspeakable: Marital violence among South Asian immigrants in the
United States (pp. 132-153). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Allard, S. A. (1991). Rethinking battered women’s syndrome: A Black feminist perspective.
UCLA Women’s Law Journal, 1, 191-207.
Almeida, R., & Dolan-Delvecchio, K. (1999). Addressing culture in batterers intervention:
The Asian Indian community as an illustrative example. Violence Against Women, 5, 654-
683.
Almeida, R., & Lockard, J. (2005). The cultural context model. In N. J. Sokoloff (with C.
Pratt; Eds.), Domestic violence at the margins: Readings in race, class, gender, and culture.
Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Ammons, L. (1995). Mules, madonnas, babies, bathwater, racial imagery and stereotypes:
The African American woman and the battered woman syndrome. Wisconsin Law Re-
view, 5, 1003-1080.
Andersen, M., & Collins, P. H. (2001). Introduction. In M. Andersen & P. H. Collins (Eds.),
Race, class and gender: An anthology (4th ed., pp. 1-9). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Ayyub, R. (2000). Domestic violence in the South Asian Muslim immigrant population in
the United States. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 9, 237-248.
Baker, N., Gregware, P., & Cassidy, M. (1999). Family killing fields: Honor rationales in the
murder of women. Violence Against Women, 5, 164-184.
Bassuk, E. (1995). Lives in jeopardy: Women and homelessness. In C. Willie, P. P. Rieker, &
B. Kramer (Eds.), Mental health, racism and sexism (pp. 237-252). Pittsburgh, PA: Univer-
sity of Pittsburgh.
Benson, M. L., & Fox, G. L. (2004). When violence hits home: How economics and neighborhood
play a role [National Institute of Justice Research in Brief; NCJ 205004]. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice.
Bograd, M. (1999). Strengthening domestic violence theories: Intersections of race, class,
sexual orientation, and gender. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 25, 275-289.
Browne, A. (1998). Recognizing the strengths of battered women. In E. Gondolf (Ed.),
Assessing woman battering in mental health services (pp. 95-131). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Browne, A., & Bassuk, S. (1997). Intimate violence in the lives of homeless and poor housed
women: Prevalence and patterns in an ethnically diverse sample. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 67, 261-278.
Bui, H. N., & Morash, M. (1999). Domestic violence in the Vietnamese immigrant commu-
nity: An exploratory study. Violence Against Women, 5, 769-795.
Butler, L. (1999). African American lesbian women experiencing partner abuse. In J.
McClennan & J. Gunther (Eds.), A professional guide to understanding gay and lesbian
domestic violence (pp. 181-205). Pittsburgh, PA: Edwin Mellen.
 Sokoloff, Dupont / INTERSECTIONS OF RACE, CLASS, AND GENDER 61

Campbell, J. (1999). Sanctions and sanctuaries: Wife beating within cultural contexts. In
D. A. Counts, J. Brown, & J. Campbell (Eds.), To have and to hit: Cultural perspectives on
wife beating (2nd ed., pp. 261-285). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Coker, D. (1999). Enhancing autonomy for battered women: Lessons from Navajo peace-
making. UCLA Law Review, 47, 1-111.
Coker, D. (2000). Shifting power for battered women: Law, material resources, and poor
women of color. University of California Davis Law Review, 33, 1009-1055.
Coker, D. (2001). Crime control and feminist law reform in domestic violence law: A critical
review. Buffalo Criminal Law Review, 4, 801-860.
Collins, P. H. (1998). The tie that binds: Race, gender and U.S. violence. Ethnic and Racial
Studies, 21, 917-938.
Courvant, D., & Cook-Daniels, L. (2000-2001). Trans and intersex survivors of domestic
violence: Defining terms, barriers and responsibilities. Retrieved August 27, 2002, from
the Survivor Project Web site: www.survivorproject.org/defbarresp.html
Crenshaw, K. (1994). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics and violence
against women of color. In M. A. Fineman & R. Mykitiuk (Eds.), The public nature of pri-
vate violence: The discovery of domestic abuse (pp. 93-118). New York: Routledge.
Dasgupta, S. D. (1998). Women’s realities: Defining violence against women by immigra-
tion, race and class. In R. K. Bergen (Ed.). Issues in intimate violence (pp. 209-219). Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dasgupta, S. D., & Warrier, S. (1996). In the footsteps of “Arundhati”: Asian Indian wom-
en’s experience of domestic violence in the United States. Violence Against Women, 2,
238-259.
DeKeseredy, W., & MacLeod, L. (1997). Woman abuse: A sociological story. Toronto: Univer-
sity of Toronto Press.
Fine, M., & Weis, L. (2000). Disappearing acts: The state and violence against women in the
twentieth century. Signs, 25, 1139-1146.
Gallin, A. (1994). The cultural defense: Undermining the policies against domestic vio-
lence. Boston College Law Review, 35, 723-745.
Garfield, G. (2001). Constructing boundaries: Defining violence against women. Unpublished
manuscript.
Garza, M. (2001, May 10). Latinas create own domestic violence strategies. WomensENews.
Retrieved January 1, 2003, from www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/544
Gimenez, M. (2001). Marxism and class, gender, and race: Rethinking the trilogy. Race, Gen-
der & Class, 8, 23-33.
Goel, R. (2000). No women at the center: The use of the Canadian sentencing circle in
domestic violence cases. Wisconsin Women’s Law Journal, 15, 293-334.
Gondolf, E. (1998). Appreciating diversity among battered women. In E. W. Gondolf (Ed.),
Assessing woman battering in mental health services (pp. 113-131). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Gondolf, E., & Fisher, E. (1988). Battered women as survivors: An alternative to treating learned
helplessness. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Hampton, R., Carillo, R., & Kim, J. (1998). Violence in communities of color. In R. Carrillo &
J. Tello (Eds.), Family violence and men of color: Healing the wounded male spirit (pp. 1-30).
New York: Springer.
hooks, b. (1989). Talking back: Thinking feminist, thinking Black. Boston: South End.
Horsburgh, B. (1995). Lifting the veil of secrecy: Domestic violence in the Jewish commu-
nity. Harvard Women’s Law Journal, 18, 171-217.
Incite! (n.d.). Violence against women of color. Retrieved August 27, 2002, from www.incite-
national.org/issues/violence.html
Josephson, J. (2002). The intersectionality of domestic violence and welfare in the lives of
poor women. Journal of Poverty, 6, 1-20.
62 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / January 2005

Kanuha, V. (1994). Women of color in battering relationships. In L. Comas-Diaz & B. Greene

(Eds.), Women of color: Integrating ethnic and gender identities in psychotherapy (pp. 428-
454). New York: Guilford.
Kanuha, V. (1996). Domestic violence, racism and the battered women’s movement in the
United States. In J. L. Edelson & Z. C. Eisikovits (Eds.), Future interventions with battered
women and their families (pp. 34-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kaufman Kantor, G., Jasinski, J., & Aldarondo, E. (1994). Socio-cultural status and inci-
dence of marital violence in Hispanic families. Violence and Victims, 9, 207-222.
Leventhal, B., & Lundy, S. (Eds.). (1999). Same-sex domestic violence: Strategies for change.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lyon, E. (1998). Poverty, welfare and battered women: What does the research tell us? Retrieved
September 17, 2002, from www.vaw.umn.edu/Vawnet/welfare.htm
Maguigan, H. (1995). Cultural evidence and male violence: Are feminist and multi-
culturalist reformers on a collision course in criminal courts? New York University Law
Review, 70, 36-99.
Mahoney, M. (1994). Victimization or oppression? Women’s lives, violence, and agency. In
M. A. Fineman & R. Mykitiuk (Eds.), The public nature of private violence: The discovery of
domestic abuse (pp. 59-92). New York: Routledge.
Mann, S. A. (2000). The scholarship of difference: A scholarship of liberation? Sociological
Inquiry, 70, 475-498.
Mann, S. A., & Grimes, M. (2001). Common and contested ground: Marxism and race, gen-
der & class analysis. Race, Gender & Class, 8, 3-22.
Nesmith, C. (2001). Safety strategies against abuse must reflect culture. WomensENews.
Retrieved August 3, 2001, from www.womensenews.org
Pratt, C., & Sokoloff, N. J. (2005). Introduction to Part I: Frameworks and overarching
themes. In N. J. Sokoloff (with C. Pratt; Eds.), Domestic violence at the margins: Readings in
race, class, gender, and culture. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press..
Raphael, J. (2000). Saving Bernice: Battered women, welfare and poverty. Boston: Northeastern
University Press.
Razack, S. (1998). What is to be gained by looking White people in the eye? Race in sexual
violence cases. In S. Razack (Ed.), Looking White people in the eye: Gender, race, and culture
in courtrooms and classrooms (pp. 56-87). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Rennison, C., & Planty, M. (2003). Non-lethal intimate partner violence: Examining race,
gender and income patterns. Violence and Victims, 18(4), 433-443.
Renzetti, C. M. (1998). Violence and abuse in lesbian relationships: Theoretical and empiri-
cal issues. In R. K. Bergen (Ed.), Issues in intimate violence (pp. 117-127). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Richie, B. (1996). Compelled to crime: The gender entrapment of battered Black women. New York:
Routledge.
Richie, B. (2000). A Black feminist reflection on the antiviolence movement. Signs, 25, 1133-
1137.
Richie, B., & Kanuha, V. (1993). Battered women of color in public health care systems: Rac-
ism, sexism, and violence. In B. Bair & S. E. Cayleff (Eds.), Wings of gauze: Women of color
and the experience of health and illness (pp. 288-299). Detroit, MI: Wayne State University.
Ristock, J. (2002). No more secrets: Violence in lesbian relationships. New York: Routledge.
Rivera, J. (1997). Domestic violence against Latinas by Latino males: An analysis of race,
national origin, and gender differentials. In A. K. Wing (Ed.), Critical race feminism: A
reader (pp. 259-266). New York: New York University Press.
Russo, A. (2002). If not now, when? Contemporary feminist movements to end violence
against women. In A. Russo (Ed.), Taking back our lives: A call to action for the feminist
movement (pp. 3-30). New York: Routledge.
 Sokoloff, Dupont / INTERSECTIONS OF RACE, CLASS, AND GENDER 63

Sokoloff, N. J. (with C. Pratt; Eds.). (2005). Domestic violence at the margins: Readings in race,
class, gender, and culture. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Sokoloff, N. J., & Dupont, I. (2005). Introduction—Domestic violence: Examining the inter-
section of race, class, and gender. In N. J. Sokoloff (with C. Pratt; Eds.), Domestic violence
at the margins: Readings in race, class, gender, and culture. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers Univer-
sity Press.
Stark, E. (1995). Re-presenting woman battering: From a battered woman syndrome to
coercive control. Albany Law Review, 58, 973-1026.
Sun-Hee Park, L. (1997). Navigating the anti-immigrant wave: The Korean women’s hot-
line and the politics of community. In N. Naples (Ed.), Community activism and feminist
politics: Organizing across race, class and gender (pp. 175-195). New York: Routledge.
Volpp, L. (2005). Feminism versus multiculturalism. In N. J. Sokoloff (with C. Pratt; Eds.),
Domestic violence at the margins: Readings in race, class, gender, and culture. Piscataway, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.
Waits, K. (1998). Battered women and their children: Lessons from one woman’s story.
Houston Law Review, 35, 29-108.
Websdale, N. (1999). Understanding domestic homicide. Boston: Northeastern University
Press.
Websdale, N., & Johnson, B. (1997). Reducing woman battering: The role of structural
approaches. Social Justice, 24, 54-81.
Weis, L., Fine, M., Proweller, A., Bertram, C., & Marusza, J. (1998). “I’ve slept in clothes long
enough”: Excavating the sounds of domestic violence among women in the White
working class. Urban Review, 30, 1-27.
West, C. (2004). Black women and intimate partner violence: New directions for research.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1487-1493.
West, C. (2005). The “political gag order” has been lifted: Violence in ethnically diverse
families. In N. J. Sokoloff (with C. Pratt; Eds.), Domestic violence at the margins: Readings
in race, class, gender, and culture. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
West, T. (1999). Wounds of the spirit: Black women, violence, and resistance ethics. New York:
New York University Press.
Yllo, K. A. (1993). Through a feminist lens: Gender, power and violence. In R. J. Gelles &
D. R. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 47-62). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Yoshihama, M. (1999). Domestic violence against women of Japanese descent in Los
Angeles: Two methods of estimating prevalence. Violence Against Women, 5, 869-897.

Natalie J. Sokoloff, professor of sociology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, is

a member of the doctoral faculties in sociology, criminology, and women’s studies
at The Graduate School, City University of New York. She holds a B.A. from the
University of Michigan, an M.A. from Brown University, and a Ph.D. from The
Graduate School, City University of New York. She is the author of Between
Money and Love: The Dialectics of Women’s Home and Market Work
(Praeger, 1980), The Hidden Aspects of Women’s Work (coeditor, Praeger,
1987), Black Women and White Women in the Professions: Occupational
Segregation by Race and Gender, 1960-1980 (Routledge, 1992), The Crimi-
nal Justice System and Women: Offenders, Prisoners, Victims, and
Workers (3rd ed. coeditor, McGraw-Hill, 2003), and Domestic Violence at the
Margins: Readings in Race, Class, Gender, and Culture (coeditor, Rutgers
University Press, 2005). Her Bibliography on Multicultural Domestic Vio-
64 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / January 2005

lence has been used widely by individuals, groups, and institutions and is avail-
able on the Web at www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/research/DomesticViolence.
Ida Dupont, assistant professor of criminal justice at Pace University (New York
City), received her doctorate from the Criminal Justice Program at The Graduate
Center, City University of New York in 2004. She has worked for 10 years in the
domestic violence field in a variety of capacities: as a counselor of battered women,
facilitator of court-ordered programs for batterers, public educator on teen dating
violence, advocate on behalf of battered women who are in prison for fighting back
against their abusers, and now a researcher and educator. Her most recent research
is based on extensive interviews with battered women from low-income neighbor-
hoods in New York City.